Scottish Beaver Advisory Group (SBAG) - Riparian Planting Recommendations
1. Planning Woodland with Beaver Presence in Mind
Objective 1.1: Conduct at least two research trials on woodland scheme designs that account for beaver presence, covering scale, tree species diversity, regeneration ability, planting density, palatability, willow buffer mitigation.
It was recognised that there are many questions that could be explored via planting field trials. There are a growing number of sites looking to trial woodland creation in the presence of beavers. These could be co-ordinated into a study to provide some useful evidence of efficacy. Key questions would need to be identified whether on established woodlands, new planting, tree species palatability, age range of trees impacted etc. The aim would be to find long term research sites.
Objective 1.2: Develop decision-support tools for forest planners that include guidance on mitigating foraging and damming impacts of beavers to inform proactive design.
There was some discussion of the relative risks of browsing impacts and impacts due to beaver induced flooding on woodland creation schemes. It was noted that there was potential to develop decision support tools/guidance to inform forest plans, in anticipation of future beaver presence. Rather than designing beaver specific guidance it was suggested this should be integrated with existing tools/guidance used by the sector, e.g. planning tools. It was noted that Forestry Commission England and Scottish Forestry have a GIS map browser for use by planners with opportunities and constraints layers.
There was some discussion about the scale of topographical data and its utility for helping to predict waterlogging – it was suggested at 5m resolution was not sufficient and more detailed LiDAR will likely be required for this level of prediction. Ground truthing was suggested as the only way to predict beaver impacts from flooding. Some felt it would be more beneficial to communicate with those involved in forest planning how beavers operate so everyone can make better informed decisions.
Highlighting a timeframe for beaver arrival and their expected impacts was suggested to be helpful. It was noted the habitat layer used in the Exeter University DAM capacity modelling is based on current woodland extent and does not necessarily reflect impacts on establishing woodland, hence it was recognised that taking account of woodland habitat change/ restructuring will be important. There was also support for guidance and training, but making tools available to everyone applying for forest grants was suggested as helpful.
Objective 1.3: Create a standardised guidance document for integrating beaver considerations with existing woodland design practices, targeting adoption by woodland managers. Include any implications for beaver impacts for woodland carbon code/accounting.
Objective 1.4: Complete a review of woodland grants, including standard costs/conditions and spatial targeting, to align with beaver presence considerations. Consideration of implications of beaver impacts for woodland carbon code/ accounting.
There was a wide discussion about grant liability where impacts are attributable to beaver as compared with deer. It was noted the Minister has provided some assurances, though detailed guidance has to be provided by Scottish Forestry.
It was suggested to be helpful to separate the implications for Carbon Code from discussion on implications for grants as there are separate contracts for carbon credits of up to 100 years. Considered important to understand the impact on carbon credits due to foraging and damming over different timescales. Suggested there is currently no guidance within the scheme to indicate how beaver impacts will be accommodated. Suggested it would be helpful to consult with land managers as to what information is needed. Suggestion that beaver wetlands could also be recognised by the carbon code and that the woodland carbon code will potentially have a biodiversity credit aspect.
2. Protection and Management Approaches
Objective 2.1: Circulate wider information on beaver proof tree guards, including recognised specifications.
It was noted there is existing guidance and that tree protection is well funded under ELMS schemes. Discussion of the feasibility of woodland creation in farmed landscapes where planting is likely to be narrower strips, with less opportunity to utilise buffers of high-density willow to facilitate establishment. Discussion of additional costs to riparian schemes of tree protection and potential disincentive for woodland creation. Noted that riparian areas are often used to attract deer for management. Hence need to link in with deer management guidance.
Objective 2.2: Advance the WOBRA licensing process by engaging relevant stakeholders to drive implementation of wider application.
It was recognised that individual tree protection methods need to be tailored to the situation, for example whether for conserving trees of hosting important lichens/bryophytes or of landscape/ amenity value. The preferred approach may vary. There was further discussion on what guidance could be given to those wishing to undertake tree protection as to what methods are appropriate, without requiring specialist surveys.
The use of ‘WOBRA’ was discussed noting it is not currently a licenced product in the UK and organisations only have permission to use on a trial basis. There was support for developing a business case for certification of WOBRA, noting the risk of home-made alternatives being used that are untested.
The final points were that planning for a future with beavers including looking after existing trees will need further consideration as these habitats did not begin with beaver presence; this applies both where beavers will naturally expand their range or where beavers are added via translocations.
3. Beavers and Large Herbivore Management
Objective 3.1: Collaborate with deer management and forestry professionals to create a joint management framework for beaver and large herbivore impacts, include integration of beaver impacts with wHIA assessments to enable beaver/ deer interactions to be managed effectively.
Objective 3.2: Establish a committee of experts, including NatureScot deer staff, to assess deer-related impacts on woodland and propose large herbivore management solutions.
Noted the desire to include beavers in wHIA method. Suggested need to consider the applicability of fencing for deer and beaver separately due to their different needs and behaviour. See recommendations from NatureScot Research Report 1368 - How to create woodlands that are resilient in the presence of beaver (Castor fiber): a review of current evidence. A point was raised that woodland creation targets and riparian naturalisation schemes want to encourage more naturally functioning woodlands and beavers are part of this process.
There was an ask that water gate construction needs to be considered recognising that that exclusion is not practical / desirable everywhere.
